Hillary Clinton could display a phenomenal leadership moment to contrast against scurrying rat Joe Biden with an appearance on March 3 at the joint congressional address by Benjamin Netanyahu. She wouldn’t have to say a word.
The treacherous rat Joe Biden will run that day to an undisclosed location in order to avoid hearing the truth from the Israeli Prime Minister. Obama Dimocrats spent the past few weeks on boycotts and other ploys to scare away the powerful voice of Netanyahu. But Benjamin Netanyahu is made of stern stuff and has an urgent truth to tell:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday doubled down on his intention to speak to a joint session of Congress next month, despite criticism from Democrats who say they will boycott the event.
Netanyahu said he fully intended to make the speech and that he will use the moment to criticize negotiations the Obama administration is holding with Iran, which he argues are endangering Israel.
“A bad deal with Iran is forming in Munich that will endanger Israel’s existence,” Netanyahu said at an event for his Likud Party, according to The Associated Press. “Therefore, I am determined to go to Washington and present Israel’s position before the members of Congress and the American people.” [snip]
Two more Democrats on Monday said they would skip Netanyahu’s address, bringing the total number to 9. Vice President Biden is also not planning on attend and has blamed a scheduling conflict. [snip]
“At the time that there are people involved in protocol of politics, it’s establishing a bad agreement with Iran that will endanger the existence of Israel,” Netanyahu said on Twitter. “My duty is to do everything in order to stop it.”
It is with fierce urgency that Netanyahu speaks in echoes of Churchill as Obama goes to Munich only to return umbrella in hand.
Netanyahu’s urgent voice of necessary truth must be contrasted with Barack Obama’s treacherous “strategic patience” which by design buys Muslim theocrats valuable time to construct a Holocaust bomb:
Critics of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy have for years assailed his administration for responding too slowly to crises ranging from Syria to Russia. In a far-reaching blueprint laying out the administration’s worldview released on Friday, the White House insists the United States is leading the global effort to confront challenges although in a deliberate manner and calls for “strategic patience.”
The National Security Strategy, required by U.S. law, is intended to set the direction for the administration and communicate American intent to lawmakers, the public, and the world.
The document is Obama’s second, and likely last, before he leaves office in early 2017. It aims to rebut criticism that he has consistently waited too long to respond to challenges like the rise of the Islamic State and Moscow’s military aggression in Ukraine, allowing the problems to worsen while his administration debated ways to act.
The document argues that such an approach was instead part of a carefully constructed strategy designed to ensure that the United States considered all options before getting ensnared in risky and potentially open-ended conflicts. It makes the case for Obama as a prudent president who was ever mindful of possible future risks rather than an overly cautious one unwilling to act aggressively in the nation’s defense.
“Strategic patience” to our ears is another Obama “stab in the back” tactic which in a fifth column manner aids totalitarian enemies of freedom. “Strategic patience” is another step on the “Managed Decline” of America and American leadership Obama seeks. “Managed Decline” begat “leading from behind” which begat “strategic patience”. Krauthammer explains:
Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline–or continued ascendancy–is in our hands.“
Obama has chosen to transform America via “managed decline” and the weapon of choice is surrender to the Muslim totalitarians and totalitarians of all sorts via “strategic patience”. The French practiced “strategic patience” in the Rhineland in 1936.
When British Prime Minister David Cameron recently lobbied members of the American Congress, at the behest of Barack Obama, to stop congressional action on Iran sanctions, the shadow he cast was that of Neville Chamberlain whose policy of “strategic patience” we know by another name – appeasement. “Strategic patience” or appeasement in the 21st century takes the form of a #BringBackOurGirls Twitter campaign as the challenge to Boko Haram, the Muslim kidnappers, rapists, and killers of children. The festering weeds of Obama’s foreign policy stink in the nostrils:
Even Obama’s own top advisors have criticized his administration’s national security decisions. Late last month, former Defense Intelligence Agency head Mike Flynn, a retired Army three-star general, said many in the administration were “paralyzed” by the complexity of fighting the Islamic State, leading them to “accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies.”
In his book Worthy Fights, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta criticized the White House after Obama stepped back from the red line he drew as a warning to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against using chemical weapons in that nation’s civil war. Hundreds of Syrian people were killed in an August 2013 chemical weapons attack, but Obama refused to retaliate as he had threatened. Additionally, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized Obama for not aiding Syrian rebels at the start of the war, as she and other members of the president’s national security team had recommended. [snip]
Obama and his aides also have been criticized for not responding more forcefully to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s land grab in Ukraine — first Crimea and, later, parts of eastern Ukraine.
Netanyahu sees the threat from Iran. Barack Obama like Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Neuman says “what, me worry?” and literally “what’s the rush?”:
Obama said that it does not make sense “to sour” negotiations with Iran “a month or two before they’re to be completed” with new sanctions.
“What’s the rush?” he said.
For Netanyahu the issue is the very existence of the state of Israel.
The “true question,” he added, is whether Iran will have nuclear bombs to “implement its intention to destroy the State of Israel. That is something we will not allow.”
This is not a political issue either in Israel or the US, Netanyahu said.
“This is an existential issue.”
It’s not just Israel. An Iran allowed to violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory, would be a threat to the entire region of the middle east and the threat will extend as far as its missiles can reach. A nuclear Iran will be not need to utilize the nuclear weapons to produce a viable threat. The threat will be carried out big stick style.
Israel’s Prime Minister must speak the truth because Obama is busy insulting Christians and Jews all the while riding his high horse down a low road. Obama Dimocrats who follow Obama on that low road will find it ends in a cliff.